For the first time since Bush's appointees were sworn in, abortion will reach the Supreme Court. The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits a certain type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed. The Bush administration has pressed the high court to reinstate the federal law, passed in 2003 but never put in effect because it was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York. The 2003 ban does not allow for exceptions due to the mother's health. Doctors who perform the procedure contend that it is the safest method of abortion when the mother's health is threatened by heart disease, high blood pressure or cancer.
I would agree with the ban if it allowed for a health exception. In fact, most abortion restrictions that fail, fail due to the lack of health exception. I know many of you disagree with abortion all together (or at least the people I have blogged alongside so far). How do you think the new judges will vote?
Alito's views "are not going to change the outcome of the central principle of Roe v. Wade," said John Garvey, the dean at Boston College Law School. "In some ways, these are tokens or markers in ... a symbolic tug of war." I back Mr. Garvey's statement all the way. I don't think that the justices will overturn Roe v. Wade. They might allow this reiterated ban, but NOT without the health exception.
I'm not sure how they'll vote because they might say there needs to be a health exception. Although I disagree with that, I agree with you about the fact that they most likely won't pass the ban without the health exception. I guess we'll see.